Secession movements are the natural outcome of a long period of peace, and the hopes for continued peace in the future. We don't know what the optimal population size for a sovereign state is, and it probably varies from one situation to another, but there is good reason to think that many modern states are way too populous for their own good and the good of their citizens. States with hundreds of millions of citizens are a relatively new and untried experiment; they may or may not turn out to be viable in the long term.

In the presence of free trade and the absence of external threats, there's simply no reason why any cohesive group of people, no matter how small, shouldn't be allowed and even encouraged to form their own state. Particularly since the development of alliances, international obligations and economic clusters like the European Union can take much of the burden of running their external affairs.

Yes Jon, And hard to understand the (Machiavellian or mindless imperatives of those who stand against State saving regional autonomy and peaceful cohabitation in our time.
Alan B.

Well said, Jon!

I was about to say the same even more boldly, but your gentle presentation sums it up already.

States within states are a ridiculous idea on a par with 'Prince' Leonards Hutt River 'province' in WA. Ignorant and malcontent minorities don't seem to get the fact that they don't have the numbers, wealth or facilities to run their own show. We have enough failed states in the world now, relying on foreign aid.

In most of these areas or regional conflicts, almost any outbreak of peace is killed off by some bloody minded politician, whose hold power is improved or all but guaranteed by (often manufactured or stage managed) politically expedient conflict!

Absolutely glaring examples include; the president of Turkey x Kurd, Assad x Syria, Putin x the Ukraine, Nethanyahu x the Palestinians, and so it goes!?
Alan B.

I do not understand the point of William Hill's article. If he thinks that separatism is bad for world peace, then I would agree with him. But the point he ignores is, that since almost every war going on at the present time is a war of separatism by ethnic and religious minorities within culturally and ethnically diverse populations, then even blind Freddy can see that if you have largely monocultural society, then buggering it up with multiculturalism is a great way to start a civil war.

No matter how much the Aquarian dreamers long for a world without borders, birds of a feather, just keep sticking together. Human beings are tribal and territorial. That is part of our DNA. We all seek a tribal (group) identity where there is a general consensus within the group as to what constitutes proper behaviour. Every single country on planet earth has a dominant culture which defines the laws under which everybody lives.

No dominant culture in history has ever allowed itself to become a minority within it's own territory without much bloodshed. It does not matter if the forces suppressing the dominant culture come from within, or without.

The only factor as to whether a rebellion is right or wrong, is if the rebels win.

Whenever they win, they set up their own country where their own cultural or religious values define the laws. Which just goes to show that multiculturalism is wrong, and that internal peace within any nation state can never be achieved where competing cultures jostle for dominance, and the dominant culture is threatened by minority immigration or birth rate differentials. Why be a minority in one country when you can be a majority in your own?

If Napoleon were alive today, he would thank those advocating multiculturalism in Australia for creating a "splendid new battlefield."